The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer.

Loading ...

Loading ...

This story appears in the {{article.article.magazine.pretty_date}} issue of {{article.article.magazine.pubName}}. Subscribe

William Shakespeare, author of the plays and poems commonly attributed to William Shakespeare. (Image via Wikipedia)

"The very same intellectual flabbiness that makes some people trust Answers in Genesis makes others believe that the Earl of Oxford wrote Shakespeare’s plays." - Professor Alan Jacobs

Later this month, the film Anonymous will be released in theaters. I've heard a little bit of Oscar buzz around it, but I'm happy to trust the judgement of my colleague, Mark Hughes, who doesn't put it anywhere near a contender for Best Picture. Which is a good thing, because at its heart Anonymous has one of the most annoying conspiracy theories in history: the idea that William Shakespeare's plays were not written by William Shakespeare, but rather by Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford. A number of otherwise very intelligent people, from Orson Welles to Derek Jacobi to Sigmund Freud have held this view. Other intelligent persons, such as Mark Twain, have suggested alternative candidates - over 70 have been suggested - and still others don't have candidates, but are willing to believe anything except the simple fact that there is a copious amount of evidence that a commoner, the son of a merchant who was educated at a free school, was one of the most brilliant writers in the English language.

No, instead it's considered self-evident by the "anti-Stratfordians" that the plays must have been published by a nobleman pseudonymously. Why they would do so is generally attributed to the so-called "stigma of print" - the idea that aristocrats would not seek credit for their works. This despite the fact that, generally speaking, there's very little evidence that such a "stigma" existed in England at the time.

But since the release of Anonymous will probably result in a media flood of articles questioning whether Shakespeare wrote the plays that bear his name, consider this a vaccine - five excellent reasons why we can rest assured that Shakespeare was written by Shakespeare.

1. Shakespeare's name is on the plays and poems attributed to him.

This seems like a trivial point, but in fact it makes a big difference. As Tom Reedy and David Kathman point out, a large number of plays from the period in which Shakespeare wrote typically did not include the authors' name at all. Generally speaking it had the publisher's name and the name of the acting companies that performed the plays. Several famous playwrights, including Christopher Marlowe, never had their names published on a play while they were still living. That so many plays were published under Shakespeare's name was a tribute to his fame - he was the rockstar of his time, both as a playwright and an actor. Publishers first started using his name to sell plays in 1598 - using his name, I might add, spelled two different ways. The different spellings make sense in a time where printing techniques could affect spelling, so as a result, spelling conventions were still in flux. It makes a bit less sense if your theory is that a nobleman is trying to establish a dual identity - wouldn't he take better care to ensure the name was spelled right?

Moreover, it simply doesn't make sense for a nobleman to be publishing pseudonymously to avoid the "stigma of print" when the practice of the time was for an author's name to not be mentioned at all. As James Shapiro mentions in his book Contested Will, "For a playwright anxious about being identified on the title page of a play... the simplest and obvious course of action was to do nothing: allow the play, like so many others, to reach London's bookstalls without a name attached to it. Nobody would notice and nobody would care."

2. Several of Shakespeare's plays were collaborations

One of the more interesting recent breakthroughs in Shakespearean scholarship is the revelation that several of Shakespeare's plays were, in fact, co-authored. It's fairly well known that about half of Shakespeare's last ten plays were collaborations. For example, Two Noble Kinsmen was a collaboration with John Fletcher. Moreover, more recent scholarship has demonstrated that several of Shakespeare's early works, such as Henry VI, Part I and Titus Andronicus were also collaborations. This poses no difficulty for the concept of William Shakespeare, actor and playwright, because collaborations among playwrights weren't uncommon in London at the time. However, it does pose difficulties for the concept of "William Shakespeare, pseudonym of famous nobleman trying to avoid the stigma of print." It's doubtful that a nobleman in Elizabethan England would collaborate with common playwrights, and there's certainly no evidence to suggest that any ever did.

3. Shakespeare was well known as a writer

Shakespeare first gained notice of the writing world in 1592, in a pamphlet by Robert Greene that refers to him as "an upstart crow" - the work of a veteran writer wary of new blood. In 1594 and 1595, there are records of favorable reviews to Shakespeare's Lucrece, and as noted above, by 1598 he was already famous enough to be worth the time of publishers to attach his names to works they wanted to sell. That same year of 1598 sees praise of Shakespeare by Richard Barnfield and Francis Meres. The latter is worth mentioning because he wrote an essay entitled "Comparative Discourse of our English Poets" - an account of eighty English writers (that also makes mention of Edward de Vere). By 1605, Shakespeare was mentioned by William Camden, one of the most well-known historians of the time, as one of the best contemporary writers.

And of course, the best testimony of all comes from Ben Jonson. Jonson was a rival playwright of Shakespeare's, but also a close friend. Shakespeare is known to have acted several of Jonson's plays. Additionally, long after Shakespeare's death, Jonson made further mention of him, not just as a writer, but also as a friend. He gives several anecdotes about Shakespeare the man, not just Shakespeare the writer.

4. Shakespeare wrote plays with specific actors and theaters in mind

Shakespeare wasn't simply a playwright. He was also an actor, and a shareholder in different theater companies. As a result, when he wrote, he wrote with his stage and his players in mind, because missteps would cost him money. For example, actors frequently had to play more than one role, so care had to be taken that characters played by the same actor weren't on stage at the same time and there was time to change costumes between appearances. Indeed, there are several instances in original Shakespeare documents in which it's not only clear that roles were intended for specific actors by their descriptions, but also because he inadvertently used the actor's name rather than the character's!

Additionally, after 1610, Shakespeare's company had moved theaters from the outdoor Globe to the indoor theater known as Blackfriars. This change also came with a change of players and restrictions on the types of scenes that could be performed. For example, at Blackfriars, the stage was small and cramped, which led to the disappearance of fight scenes from the plays. However, the company gained talented musicians, leading to more music within the plays themselves.

These are important considerations to take into account. When you're writing for specific actors and specific stages, that's going to imply a certain intimacy. When you work with people over and over again, as Shakespeare did, you know their strengths and weaknesses. When you yourself are acting on a particular stage, as Shakespeare did, you know how best to write scenes that actors can perform well on stage. That combination of a stable acting company and Shakespeare's own acting experience is the sturdy foundation that his plays are built on. Would a nobleman, writing miles away from the stage, who rarely saw the plays performed, confuse characters and actors? Keep the stage settings so firmly in mind? Perhaps. But the simpler explanation is that the writer knew his players and knew his stage, and so wrote accordingly.

5. A conspiracy doesn't make sense

Of all of the Shakespeare conspiracies that I'm familiar with, the one that makes the most sense is that Christopher Marlowe somehow faked his death in 1593 so well that he fooled people who knew him (and he was well known about London), and somehow managed to keep on fooling people for decades thereafter. He even somehow arranged to be writing as Shakespeare several years prior to his death, so cunning was he.

Yes, that's the most believable one.

The problem that all of the alternatives to Shakespeare have in common is a question of motive and means. Why publish pseudonymously instead of anonymously? Why collaborate in conspiracy with a known actor? Why write for particular actors and stages? Why collaborate with other playwrights? And then, how do you keep them from talking? Then as now, actors and playwrights weren't known for their sobriety or disinclination to gossip. And yet there's no contemporary inkling among the writers and players of Shakespeare's day that anyone but William Shakespeare acted and wrote plays. The entire notion of a conspiracy simply falls apart under close examination, especially when the "stigma of print" problem could be solved in one fell swoop by anonymous publication - which was, let me repeat, the common practice of the time for playwrights.

***

For more about Shakespeare and the authorship controversy, I highly recommend James Shapiro's Contested Will, which I read in one sitting yesterday, and explores the entire controversy and explains the simple reasons why it's clear that William Shakespeare wrote his books. If you just want the case for Shakespeare, an excerpt from the book laying that out is available as a separate e-book here. Shakespeareauthorship.com is another excellent resource.

And in case you're wondering why this is an important matter, well, there are several reasons. First, as a person who makes a living writing, I feel obligated to defend the credit due my fellows, alive or deceased. Additionally, it also goes to the simple promotion of good thinking. The anti-Stratfordian cases are, for the most part, no different from any other fringe conspiracy theory. They base their case on nooks and crannies while ignoring the main evidence. Half-truths are bolstered. Contrary facts overlooked. Anachronistic narratives are weaved. There are often some vestiges of plausibility to them - for example, the case for Edward de Vere relies heavily on parts of Shakespeare's plays that appear to mimic de Vere's life. But that's the worst kind of cherry picking. Frankly, I'm sure you can draw vague parallels to just about anybody's life in Shakespeare's plays, if you look hard enough and ignore anything to the contrary.

The bottom line is that Shakespeare was well known in his time, as both a writer and an actor. He appeared at Court, his company was a favorite of King James, he drew praise and envy from his contemporary writers, and his work lives on to this day. Suggestions to the contrary involve overlooking too many facts and wild speculating with insufficient evidence. There's simply no good reason to suggest that anyone but Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare.